Elite New York Democrats are waging a war on children. Well At least thats how it appears when the progressive Democrat mayor kicks 700 students out of high-performing schools, because Well He doesnt really have a good reason. Ostensibly, its because he doesnt want charter schools (public education facilities that govern their affairs with autonomy from New York public education directives) to share space with underperforming school districts.

Proving that there are worse things than a Bloomberg-run city, de Blasio has decided to kick at least three charter school programs out of their co-location agreements with traditional public education facilities. The fact that the charter programs have shown a tremendous ability to produce quality education  and are highly prized by under-privileged families  is apparently unimportant to a mayor who was elected with heavy teacher-union support. Over 700 kids will now be dumped into underperforming public schools, because their charter program has been forced, by the elitist minds at Gracie Mansion, to shut its doors.

De Blasio, a vocal supporter of teachers unions, has said that he would end free rent for some co-located charter schools. At a June forum, when asked about the existing rent-free agreements, de Blasio said, pointedly, There is no way in hell that Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, O.K.?

Right Free rent is the issue Thats a hard pill to swallow in a city that has strict rent control regulations. (By the way, Eva Moskowitz is head of one of the most successful charter programs in New York. But sure Lets get personal.) According to de Blasio, it is unacceptable for high-performing charter schools to share space with underperforming public schools. At Harlem 5, a 22 Success charter school located in Harlem, 88 percent of the student body passed the state math exam. At PS 123, which shares the same building as Success, only 5 percent passed the same state exam. But yeah The obvious problem here is rent.

The progressive Democrats priorities, however, are obviously not focused on the wellbeing of inner city youth. In a debate with the Republican candidate for Mayor (Yeah, there was a Republican candidate) de Blasio explained that in the end, our city rises or falls on our traditional public schools. Okay Well, the city is falling. Luckily for some winners of charter-school lotteries, not everyone is falling at the same pace.

And unfortunately, de Blasio is far more interested in protecting the union monopoly, than bettering the education of the citys underprivileged. After all, its not as if these charter programs primarily benefit the wealthy. In fact the primary beneficiary happens to be the very people that progressives claim to represent. Which raises the question: If the betterment of the underprivileged is the goal, why is the city not doing everything they can to expand the footprint of 22 Success and their educational progress?

Well The obvious answer is that a 9 year old child from a one parent home, north of 115th Street, simply doesnt donate as much to the progressive cause as the United Federation of Teachers. Unions, after all, are unlikely to be ecstatic about a non-union school option that outperforms in such phenomenal fashion.

Parents, by the way, are overwhelmingly supportive of alternatives to the citys abysmal public Ed system. Last year, a Harlem charter program (soon to be shutdown by the Democrat mayor of NYC) received 2,665 applications for a mere 125 open positions.

Wouldnt it occur to an education oriented mayor that  maybe  steps should be taken to support the popular and effective alternative to public educations underperformance? Of course, this is the problem with government: We invest in cronyism Not results. Do you care about the kids? Help 22 Success expand their foot print. Do you care more about support from a major Democrat constituency? Well, then you should kick 700 kids out of charter schools and bow to the union that has fundamentally under-delivered on their educational responsibility to needy communities.

Then again de Blasios war on the bourgeois aspirations of low income New Yorkers aligns more with the crony mentality of labor unions, than the rhetoric he employed during stump speeches After all, why should successful endeavors to educate our youth be rewarded when there are so many due-paying members in the United Federation of Teachers?

In the end, to the de Blasio-style liberal, the betterment of children doesnt matter. The concerns of impoverished families who look to charter programs as a way out for their kids, are insignificant to the rookie mayor. (And just to drive this point home: The mayor recently called the public protest, in support of the 700 kids who will be losing their charter program, a side show.) See, taking steps to actually help the poor might damage the constituency of a crony Progressive who received massive amounts of campaign funding from teacher unions. Unions who, by the way, feel threatened by out-performing non-union entities, such as charter schools.

So, sorry hopeful families of the 22 Success program If youre concerned about one of the 700 kids who are about to lose their position in a charter school, then thank de Blasios love for teacher unions; because its apparently stronger than his dedication to the betterment of disenfranchised communities.

Apparently, helping the underprivileged is only progressive when you have the support of wealthy union backers

LOL! I did, last year and I grew up there. Best thing I ever did. The final straw was Bloomberg demanding a list from landlords of all the tenants who smoke, that was it for me. Now we are getting into Nazi tactics “Send us der list of der Juden” so I got the hell out of there, and it seems just in time. Now they got Stalin to deal with.

IMHO.....the people of NYC gave up their rights when they elected this dog.
Let them suffer. Maybe it will serve as a example to everyone else who can think before they pull the lever for a flaming Liberal/commie like De Blasio.

So, the socialist lives down to the notion that we should not work to raise the performance against (pathetically lax) standards, but rather we should force the capable to participate in the politics of failure.

DeBlasio, don’t elevate. Denigrate.

You commie POS.

10
posted on 03/02/2014 5:43:45 AM PST
by PubliusMM
(RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2016; I pray we make it that long.)

As our Governor has said, conservatives have no place in New York, and Mr. DeBlasio agrees.

So, all you conservatives should convert to Progressivism because if you are not a Progressive you are a
knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping, gun-loving Christian moron, who, of course, is not welcome in New York.

As a close relative told me, after his daughters moved to New York City and became Leftists: "It's impossible to live there and not absorb the prevailing 'Liberal' psychosis."

We see this everywhere in our country. People who have absorbed it act like they're brainwashed--psychotic--delusional--unable to see truth and scornful of it--totally saturated with groupthink.

Those who resist it must have a powerful internal moral compass, integrity, and commitment to truth for its own sake. Some do. My children, I am happy to say, are all like this. They resisted steadfastly and truthfully. They think for themselves. They are wise.

At Harlem 5, a 22 Success charter school located in Harlem, 88 percent of the student body passed the state math exam. At PS 123, which shares the same building as Success, only 5 percent passed the same state exam.

The real reason for the disparity (well, most of it) is that charter schools can kick out kids who either don't behave, have special needs, or are simply low-performing. I teach public school in L.A., and we see it every year in the spring in California when the CST is taken. The charter schools kick out their worst kids just before the test to raise their scores, and the children show up in our admissions office about a week before the test.

The two biggest problems that I see are 1) we cannot kick kids out of middle school. It doesn't matter if they start fights, set fires (yes, really), vandalize property, curse at teachers, bully smaller kids, have weapons, sell drugs, disrupt the classroom every single day... we cannot kick them out. At best we can find another school to transfer them to, if that school will take them. That school will usually offer to swap one of their own little sociopaths and we agree, hoping that if we peel a kid away from his little crew he runs around with, the shock might make him straighten up a little. Of course, we can only do this with the parent's permission. (I say parent because there's usually only one.)

The other problem, I admit, is the union. We can't get rid of bad teachers either, but I have to say (though no one on FR will believe me) that bad teachers aren't as prevalent as people think. Most people who can't teach realize it and quit after a year or two. But a few do hang in there, and they can be a bit of a bummer. But even a mediocre teacher can do pretty well if the children are well-behaved. They just can't deal with the wild little thugs we get. I've been doing it for 10 years now and let me tell you, it's like juggling on a tightrope.

20
posted on 03/02/2014 6:56:33 AM PST
by A_perfect_lady
("A liberal... declares a policy to be a moral imperative based on his emotional reaction to it.")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.